John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight show on HBO Sunday was probably the most honest discussion yet about the conundrum that the federal government faces regarding the balance between national security and privacy. Oliver’s entire show boils down to a single point that he made early in the program: “We all, naturally, want perfect privacy and perfect safety. But those two things cannot coexist.”

The nation’s current, and imperfect, security structure went into hyperdrive after the 9/11 attacks, when Congress passed the USA Patriot Act and granted the executive branch unprecedented powers to conduct electronic surveillance pretty much wherever and whenever authorities deemed necessary in order to keep the American homeland safe. Despite concerns about spy agencies’ overreach, and the extremely wide latitude granted to them under the Patriot Act, Congress has kept the act in place. It’s up for renewal in June, and it badly needs modification.

Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who is now running for president, has decided to make such federal intrusions a focal point of his campaign. If elected president, he said Tuesday, “on Day One, I will immediately end this unconstitutional surveillance.” First of all, he won’t be elected. Second, neither he nor anyone else — Republican or Democrat — is going to end that surveillance. Continue reading →

Senator Rand Paul, R-KY, speaks during a discussion on reforming the criminal justice system at Bowie State University in Bowie, Maryland. Paul announced Tuesday he is seeking the Republican Party’s nomination for president. AFP PHOTO/MANDEL NGAN/ File

Call it pandering or a walk-back on his 2011 interview with Rachel Maddow in which he said he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act on libertarian grounds, but Paul is talking to minority groups that the Republican Party has done very little to reach. Therein lies part of the “is he or isn’t he” dilemma for the GOP.

My wise and beautiful wife and I are in the process of getting furniture for our house. We would actually like the stuff to match and have a certain “look.” Only problem is, we too often disagree on the look, or even what it is that might create the look we couldn’t agree on.

So, for the first time in our lives, we hired folks to help us find the right stuff and the right look. However, the Wise and Beautiful One is so unsure of her design sensibilities that she asked her brother, who has great design sense, to visit and offer his advice. So this Sunday, a designer, an architect and her brother will gather with us to discuss our furniture.

Feeling there were starting to be way too many cooks in the design kitchen, I suggested that perhaps I didn’t need to be there.

“Well then, don’t complain about whatever we come up with,” she said.

Lesson learned: There’s a distinct difference between seeking affirmation and asking for permission.

Our furniture experience has helped me understand the position of folks such as Senators Rand Paul and Jeff Flake, who have expressed outrage at President Barack Obama’s decision to ask Congress for authorization to militarily strike Syria.

When I first heard Paul’s complaints that the president was politicizing the decision by going to Congress, I thought he was off-base and was himself politicizing the process. After all, Paul initially demanded that Obama should ask Congress’ approval. Obama is to be commended, I thought, for seeking congressional permission.

Only thing is, the president really isn’t seeking permission. Like the Wise and Beautiful One, he’s merely seeking affirmation. That was evident yesterday when Secretary of State John Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that, “The president, as you know, retains the authority, always has the authority, had the authority to strike before coming to Congress and that doesn’t change.”

You can’t take that view and, in the same hearing, quote the Constitution like a preacher quotes scripture, scolding Flake: “It’s somewhat surprising to me that a member of Congress, particularly one on the Foreign Relations Committee, is going to question the president fulfilling the vision of the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution and divided power on foreign policy.”

If you take that view, then be prepared to stand down if Congress doesn’t authorize action.

The Constitution grants Congress the permission to declare war. But since the Korean War, presidents have conducted military operations without Congressional approval. Even after the War Powers Act of 1973, which was supposed to restrict presidents’ authority to unilaterally send Americans to war, presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton staged military actions without Congressional approval.

Obama’s move to go to Congress was a welcome change of strategy – if it had indeed been about seeking permission rather than receiving affirmation and political cover. Sending Americans to foreign lands to wage war should be a difficult and carefully-considered decision that requires buy-in from both executive and legislative branches. It should be far more difficult than it has been for the past half-century.

So I was happy to see Obama’s decision to seek congressional permission. But after taking such a gutsy approach and raising the bar for future presidential military adventures, he should now have the courage to accept Congress’ decision, whatever it may be.

Post navigation

The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board was the first editorial board in the nation to use a blog to openly discuss hot topics and issues among its members and with readers. Our intent is to pull back the curtain on the daily process of producing the unsigned editorials that reflect the opinion of the newspaper, and to share analysis and opinion on issues of interest to board members and invited guest bloggers.